Canadian Politics

[Wideleft]

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I don't think it's nonsensical. I think it's misguided and based on dreams rather than reality.

Potato/po-tah-to.

The thing is low tax/small government was tried in Kansas as a grand GOP experiment and it failed miserably.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/06/07/the-great-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/?sh=247f60e15508

[blue_gold_84]

9 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I don't think it's nonsensical. I think it's misguided and based on dreams ignorance rather than reality.

FTFY

[17to85]

Why do people want to go back to having a ruling class and the rest of us being serfs serving at their leisure? That's what small government gets you. 

I for one want a government that works for everyone and holds every one to the same standard.

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, bluto said:

Because to me, it is. Government employs force. I can voluntarily not support anything which I choose not to support... except for my government, which wills itself a greater share of our money every year.

 

Private corporations have the option to use force as well, and often do. Moreover, if/when they use their leverage inappropriately and/or illegally, they do not answer to you- you need to resort to (gasp) government agencies for remediation. 

[bluto]

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I for one want a government that works for everyone and holds every one to the same standard.

I think that past governments (ie: ones that were all by degrees smaller) did that just fine.

4 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Private corporations have the option to use force as well, and often do. Moreover, if/when they use their leverage inappropriately and/or illegally, they do not answer to you- you need to resort to (gasp) government agencies for remediation. 

Sure... but fundamentally I choose which ones to have a relationship with (or not). It isn't the same.

[Wideleft]

2 minutes ago, bluto said:

I think that past governments (ie: ones that were all by degrees smaller) did that just fine.

The Golden Age of burning rivers, residential schools, for-profit health care, acid rain and 70 hour work-weeks were absolutely to-die for.

[HardCoreBlue]

2 hours ago, Noeller said:

Thank goodness.... that's what civilized society is about. 

But I want this to be voluntary, in other words I and I only will be the only one I answer to when picking and choosing what I want to do and if I'm told to do something I don't want to do, it's an abuse of power, enforcement.

Totally straightforward, no complexities when it comes to the right to choose, this was the box we were all given no matter what your understanding is and nothing other than how I see this box and what's inside of it is acceptable.

End of story and if you can't see that, I'm sad.  

[bluto]

3 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

The Golden Age of burning rivers, residential schools, for-profit health care, acid rain and 70 hour work-weeks were absolutely to-die for.

You work less than 70 hours? Slacker.

Just now, HardCoreBlue said:

But I want this to be voluntary, in other words I and I only will be the only one I answer to when picking and choosing what I want to do and if I'm told to do something I don't want to do, it's an abuse of power, enforcement.

Totally straightforward, no complexities when it comes to the right to choose, this was the box we were all given no matter what your understanding is and nothing other than how I see this box and what's inside of it is acceptable.

End of story and if you can't see that, I'm sad.  

Seriously, some folks need to accept that some rational people of good morals actually believe that government is way too big, way too expensive and makes itself moreso by the year with no process to check the growth. It isn't a weird take.

[Tracker]

9 minutes ago, bluto said:

I think that past governments (ie: ones that were all by degrees smaller) did that just fine.

Sure... but fundamentally I choose which ones to have a relationship with (or not). It isn't the same.

You seem to be unaware that price-fixing and collusion between corporations is common to limit competition , services and raise prices. 

[Bigblue204]

9 minutes ago, bluto said:

I think that past governments (ie: ones that were all by degrees smaller) did that just fine.

Sure... but fundamentally I choose which ones to have a relationship with (or not). It isn't the same.

in todays world I'm not so sure. I really don't want to have a relationship with Loblaws...buut my bank account says otherwise. Companies have gotten so big that even if you think you're going to a competitor you really might not be. It's all a big corporate game.

[Wideleft]

2 minutes ago, bluto said:

You work less than 70 hours? Slacker.

Work/life balance, baby!

[Bigblue204]

3 minutes ago, bluto said:

You work less than 70 hours? Slacker.

Seriously, some folks need to accept that some rational people of good morals actually believe that government is way too big, way too expensive and makes itself moreso by the year with no process to check the growth. It isn't a weird take.

I can understand this. But I don't think the answer is necessarily less government. Less corruption and needless spending..? Absolutely! It's a huge issue and a reason why we're in the situations we are with government etc. Now less corruption likely leads to smaller governments for a time. But I don't want a less socialized society...if that makes sense.

18 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Why do people want to go back to having a ruling class and the rest of us being serfs serving at their leisure? That's what small government gets you. 

I for one want a government that works for everyone and holds every one to the same standard.

go back to? I'd argue that's exactly what's taking place right now. In fact there hasn't been a wage gap between the rich and poor like there is today since Queens and kings ruled.

[Wideleft]

17 minutes ago, bluto said:

I think that past governments (ie: ones that were all by degrees smaller) did that just fine.

Sure... but fundamentally I choose which ones to have a relationship with (or not). It isn't the same.

 

6 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

in todays world I'm not so sure. I really don't want to have a relationship with Loblaws...buut my bank account says otherwise. Companies have gotten so big that even if you think you're going to a competitor you really might not be. It's all a big corporate game.

If you're the kind of guy (not looking at anyone) who supports runaway corporate profits, strike-breaking, polluting etc. it might not be that hard 

[Tracker]

When you turn the clock back 50 years, drunk driving resulted in a fine. sexual harassment was tolerated, polluters were allowed to do as they pleased (Sarnia being a prime example) , reproductive rights were unknown, discrimination was rife (much moreso than today) and the residential schools tragedies were squelched. Private interests changed none of these- it was your hated and feared governments.

[Bigblue204]

31 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

But I want this to be voluntary, in other words I and I only will be the only one I answer to when picking and choosing what I want to do and if I'm told to do something I don't want to do, it's an abuse of power, enforcement.

Totally straightforward, no complexities when it comes to the right to choose, this was the box we were all given no matter what your understanding is and nothing other than how I see this box and what's inside of it is acceptable.

End of story and if you can't see that, I'm sad.  

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're saying...

I will say...it 100% is voluntary. No one is making anyone (all things being equal) live in this country. If you're volunteering to live in a country, then you are required to play by that countries rules.

[Mark H.]

5 hours ago, Wideleft said:

I'd argue that he was an expert in using wedge issues and omnibus bills in order to try and get the things he wanted.  Fortunately, the Supreme Court shut him down over and over again.

He did not work with the opposition and he wouldn't even meet with Premiers.

Yes, he used wedge issues.

Also yes - there was a clear and well known connection between him and Jack Layton

He couldn't have unseated Paul Martin's Liberals without NDP support

[Tracker]

10 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Yes, he used wedge issues.

Also yes - there was a clear and well known connection between him and Jack Layton

He couldn't have unseated Paul Martin's Liberals without NDP support

True, but Paul Martin lived in a different reality than the rest of us and was a horribly inept politician. Remember the Canada Steamship Lines issues?

[Wideleft]

26 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Yes, he used wedge issues.

Also yes - there was a clear and well known connection between him and Jack Layton

He couldn't have unseated Paul Martin's Liberals without NDP support

Working with another leader to bring down a government is much different than working with another leader to govern.  

There's a world of difference between Trudeau/Singh and Harper/Layton.

[Mark H.]

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

Working with another leader to bring down a government is much different than working with another leader to govern.  

There's a world of difference between Trudeau/Singh and Harper/Layton.

Of course they are not comparable.  But the bottom line is - without Layton - Harper never wins a majority

That will not happen in the current situation - that's all I was saying

21 minutes ago, Tracker said:

True, but Paul Martin lived in a different reality than the rest of us and was a horribly inept politician. Remember the Canada Steamship Lines issues?

I do remember all of that.  I also remember that as finance minister, he slashed billions in transfer payments, which I assume was sanctioned by the Prime Minister

When he ran for Prime Minister, it was hard to determine if he was really that inept, or if his party just wasn't behind him

[SpeedFlex27]

8 hours ago, Tracker said:

And Han Dong has been censured and has left the party. PC MP's can meet with German neo-Nazis and......nothing happens.

A sitting Liberal MP telling the Chinese to keep two Canadians in jail in China so it doesn't help the Conservatives politically is a valid comparison??? WTH? Both parties have evil & corrupt people working for them. That was my point. 

[SpeedFlex27]

8 hours ago, Noeller said:

as long as I live, I will never understand libertarianism.... it's a serious lifestyle choice in Alberta, but I do not get it. It's like people do not understand how to function as part of a society. 

Libertarians say, feel free to jump out of an airplane with a parachute. That's your choice & libertarians will support your right to do that. Or climb that mountain peak in Japer National Park. But if your chute gets tangled on the way down & you break your back on impact or you trip & fall 500 feet down the mountain breaking both legs then you should pay for the cost of your rescue, healthcare, physio & recovery. It's not our problem, Libertarians will say. It's yours because you decided to do it. I never understood or liked Libertarian Conservativism.

[Mark H.]

2 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

A sitting Liberal MP telling the Chinese to keep two Canadians in jail in China so it doesn't help the Conservatives politically is a valid comparison??? WTH? Both parties have evil & corrupt people working for them. That was my point. 

Too much does not add up:

Why wait two years to report this?

This amounts to treason - why was the MP not arrested and charged?

[SpeedFlex27]

1 hour ago, Mark H. said:

Too much does not add up:

Why wait two years to report this?

This amounts to treason - why was the MP not arrested and charged?

 Two national security agencies confirmed this story according to Global. That this meeting was held in secrecy. It also says that the PMO only became aware of the conversation a couple of days ago. Dong admitted to having a conversation with Chinese Consul General Han. Didn't admit it was about the two Michaels. Dong should be in jail awaiting trial. 

[Mark H.]

8 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

 Two national security agencies confirmed this story according to Global. That this meeting was held in secrecy. It also says that the PMO only became aware of the conversation a couple of days ago. Dong admitted to having a conversation with Chinese Consul General Han. Didn't admit it was about the two Michaels. Dong should be in jail awaiting trial. 

The fact he's not...indicates there is more to the story. He should have been arrested 2 years ago.

[Wideleft]

8 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

 Two national security agencies confirmed this story according to Global. That this meeting was held in secrecy. It also says that the PMO only became aware of the conversation a couple of days ago. Dong admitted to having a conversation with Chinese Consul General Han. Didn't admit it was about the two Michaels. Dong should be in jail awaiting trial. 

Nope, nope, nope.  The Agencies have not confirmed anything as far as I've read (and I could be wrong at this second).  The sources are unnamed "whistleblowers".

Again, the stated motivation to delay the Michaels' release makes zero sense, but I'm more than willing to follow the evidence as it builds/crumbles.

So far, this is not passing the smell test for me.  Keep in mind, just because it was ran past the Global lawyers prior to publishing, they often advise on wording rather than the actual veracity of the story.